Find Reviews by Make:
If you live in the NAFTA zone (excluding Mexico, of course), your best bet at seeing a global Ford Ranger is in the movie The Counselor. Otherwise, you’ll soon be able to buy a now-updated version of Ford’s F-150 for the rest of us.
As you’ve been told countless times, the Ranger is redundant in America, thanks to being 90 percent of the F-150’s size but no less expensive. Along with an updated SYNC system, it gets a new suite of active safety features (active cruise control, park assist), as well as trailer sway control, hill descent control and things that our government considers mandatory, like tire pressure monitors. A basic mid-size pickup this ain’t.
Power comes from a gasoline 2.5L 4-cylinder engine or 4 and 5 cylinder diesels.
119 Comments on “2015 Ford Ranger Facelifted...”
Read all comments
At 90% of the F-150’s size, that puts it squarely at the size of the new Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon. They aren’t mid-sized either, but they’re being marketed as such.
If not “midsize” what would you rename the segment? Almost The Price And Size Of Fullsize Extra Cabs If You Get The Crew Cab And Longer Bed But Still Too Narrow For Three Across Seating And Four Foot Wide Material Or Pallets? Or ATPASOFECIYGTCCALBBSTNFTASAFFWMOP???
I think we all know what “Midsize” means and we’ll be sticking with that thank you very much.
I would call it, “Legacy Full Size” as it’s almost exactly the same size as the 1990 version. The 1990 version had plenty of room for three-across seating. Mid-size inside does not make it mid-size outside; it’s just got too much bloat all around.
The Toyota Tacoma and Nissan Frontier are still smaller than the Colorado, so at least they qualify as “mid-sized”.
Correct, “Legacy Size” Range of engines? Only one I have seen here is the 3.2 Diesel
L/W/H/WB:
Tacoma crew cab/5′ bed: 208/74/70/127
Frontier crew cab/5′ bed: 205/73/70/126
Colorado crew cab/5′ bed: 212/74/70/128
Yes, the Colorado is bigger, but I don’t see how an extra 3″ of overhang makes it not a midsize.
The new Colorado/Canyon are also narrower than the Tacoma. The new GM twins are no wider than the old US Ranger. If you ever see one parked behind the other it is pretty obvious.
@DrZZhivago138
The non NA, Holden and Isuzu versions are.narrowish in the rear seats. OK for Children, but not adults on a long trip.
I do not know if the U.S. Version has Ben widened
@RobertRyan: From the few examples I’ve seen, it doesn’t look like it. Not that the old Colorado, S-10, Ranger et al. were any wider. They just looked proportionately wider because they weren’t as tall.
Now the Dakota, that was noticeably wider. It had to be in order for there to be 48″ between the wheel wells.
@Drzhivago138
Looks like they a built for personal transport primarily. Here you would get a couple male/female using them as Daily Drivers, or Tradie transporting one or two to a work site. They are used for tools, or personal,transport at most work sites
The Dakota was a bit of an odd bird…another child of Chrysler’s “we’re #3, so we try harder!” mindset in the late ’80s. It wasn’t like how compact pickups get/got marginally better mileage than their fullsize counterparts; the Dakota had essentially the same drivetrain as the Ram 150 when it came out, so its mileage figures were basically identical. And both its short and long beds were pretty much the same as a fullsize Ram, but its towing and payload capacities were stunted. I feel like its primary purpose in 1987 was to get Dodge back on the average pickup buyer’s radar and start building up hype for the ’94 Ram.
Vulpine, the reason that smaller vehicles had to grow in size has more to do with safety regulations than anything else look at how much thicker the pillars in cars are then they where a few years ago. Look at how much bigger the mini is than the original, same with the beetle, and they aren’t much bigger on the inside the vehicles are just hoeing more crumple zones and more supports for roof strength. I went from a 99 suburban to a 05 suburban, and they where the same exterior size but the 05 was smaller on the inside do to increased safety standards. Thats the reason the US ranger was canned they couldn’t get it to meet safety standards, They had different ecoboost motors they could have dropped in that truck to satisfy cafe and the EPA but to safely seat to adults in the front the truck would have to grow. Its the same reason extended cab midsize trucks don’t have jump seats anymore. The New GM twins are being marketed as midsize not as compact trucks. Don’t you own an F150?
Carilloskis, I now drive a Fiat 500 which has 5-star safety ratings on all but one factor and it is physically little larger than its 1957 predecessor. The current larger size of all these cars and trucks are NOT just for safety, they’re larger also to dodge the CAFE fuel economy regulations that go as much on the size of the vehicle as other factors. There’s also the very simple fact that the average American likes their vehicles larger than most other nations.
Hey congrats on the Fiat, Don’t you have a Jeep wrangler as well? I guess its good that you found a car that meets your needs better than a truck.
Thank you. I had a choice: Lose the truck or lose the Jeep. The truck had automatic and the wife will only drive automatic–and was scared to death of trying to drive the truck because of its size. Since the truck WAS a full-sized model, it was a no-brainer for me. Let her have the Fiat–I enjoy driving it too. (Thing’s just too much fun!)
And as I said, in a couple years time, I may be driving the size truck I really want.
@Vulpine,
I do know here the Ranger/BT50 are regarded as the better of the “utes” and the Colorado is almost a generation behind.
The US Colorado has been refined more so, I would suspect if it was made for the US market it could be refined a little more.
This would make it an equivalent or better vehicle than the new aluminium F-150. It would carry and tow what 75% of full size 1/2 ton customers use their vehicles for and with the 5 cylinder diesel (the same that is in the Transit) would get you over 30mpg on the highway.
It would also be cheaper to manufacture, since the use of aluminium is a more expensive and intensive process.
Big Al Form Oz
As Much as I would like the Row my own features of the T6 Ranger BT 50 and efficient diesel compared to what we get here I would still probably opt for the full size I know your truck has really good water wading capability, but i like being able to fit 3 people across the back in comfort. the 5.5ft box on the f150 is the smallest I can go in terms of area. Id need to go with a long box on the mid size trucks but i would say if I lived in an area where there was not raptors id probably buy a wild track Ranger Crew Cab manual, loaded. I really wish the numbers where there for Ford to bring the Ranger stateside but i doubt it would happen. The only global vehicles that we are being denied isn’t really from the chicken tax but from VW and Ford, the Ranger is built in SA which has free trade with the US and VW could build the Amorak in Mexico but neither sees a return on investment.
I think the narrowness you point out is a big negative. Not here as Crewcabs are used for mainly two person cars or as Tradies vehicles on work sites
Using them as 4-5 seat SUV’s is not what they do here
Carilloskis – VW would have to invest in building a factory in Mexico. It would be a cheaper proposition than either the USA or Canada but still expensive. VW said a long time ago that it would need to sell 100,000 per year to make it financially feasible.
The Ranger is made in South Africa and that would avoid the Chicken tax but most sources I’ve read say that having to meet USA safety and emissions standards can add 20 – 35% to the price of a vehicle.
Ford doesn’t want to cut into its own 1/2 ton sales and it doesn’t want to cut into its van sales.
VW needs competitive SUV’s and that makes more sense as a first priority. I do not think that anything in their lineup shares a platform with the Amarok. That makes reaching a profitable return on investment that much more difficult.
I do suspect that if we see FTA’s that cover not just tariffs but universalization of emissions and safety standards we would see more global products come to the USA and some of our stuff that has global appeal could be more easily exported. Ford wants such an FTA to be created between the EU and USA.
@Carilloskis,
I don’t recall using your name specifically in my comment. So, your preference is good. If that’s what you want then buy a full size.
Did I try and top you from buying a full size?
I did mention how 75% of pickup owners use their vehicles.
But the F-150 won’t fit in my garage! I seriously would like this option in the market.
So can we sign you up for a new F-150 if we can make it fit? But where is everyone else parking these 2+ million a year new fullsize pickups? It must be you got shorted in the garage department.
I might note that where I live, my available parking space is a mere 18′ from sidewalk to curb. My 1990 F-150 standard cab/long bed only just fit within that length. I would also note that my parking space measures only 8′ wide, which again that older F-150 only just fit when including the mirrors. The modern F-150 is almost exactly the same width before the external mirrors are extended while even the extended-cab/short bed would lap over both limits. The Ranger and Colorado would at least fit better than modern full size but a true mid-sized truck would fit better yet.
What will my next vehicle be? A Jeep Renegade, or a Hyundai Santa Cruz?
If you’re gonna compare apples to apples, the new RCLB F-150 actually got shorter in WB and OAL compared to the ’14, and change in width has been essentially negligible in every midsized pickup since the early ’70s.
If you could find a non-Raptor SuperCab/5.5′ bed (04-09 only), it’d be pretty much the same dimensions as an old 133″ WB RCLB.
I am also considering maneuvering and parking ease.
The most common F-150 is 239.5″ in length. The standard modern garage is 240″. A friend of mine bought an F-150 & new house in the last couple years. He did confirm that the truck does fit (and the door closes), but it literally occupies all the space.
For those who want to be able to walk around the car, or have a place to put other objects (bikes, garbage cans, shelves, etc.), an F-150 will get parked in the driveway, not in the garage.
The largest vehicle I can park in my garage and still be able to use my garage is just over 200″. The old Ranger barely fit. The current Frontier probably fits. The smallest current Colorado won’t.
Probably will find it will not fit in your garage as well
@RobertRyan,
You are correct in some instances.
I do know my BT50, which is essentially a Mazda variant of the Ranger is 19.5 feet in length with the bull bar and tow package.
ARB and TJM bars sit out further than my genuine Mazda bar. The same goes for tow packages. They can vary in size as well.
Garage?
Unless you live in Phoenix or Minnesota, why are you wasting a perfectly good garage on a perfectly good vehicle?
Anything will fit if your approach speed is high enough ;)
Am I the only one that finished reading that article confused about the availability within the NAFTA zone, outside of Mexico and the movie “The Counselor” of the truck that is Ford’s F150 for the rest of us at 90% of the size and price?
It is sold in Mexico, the only NAFTA zone member to do so. Not a fan of the new styling though, older version looks better
Maybe? I’m not confused at all that it’s there, just confused as to WHY it’s available there and not here.
@Vulpine – Reason one…….F150…… Ford doesn’t want to do anything that would hurt its golden boy.
Another reason (or two) is/are safety and emissions standards. I’m sure that the Argentinian Ranger meets Mexican rules but not USA ones.
Differing Diesel standards is a major one and a reason US HD Pickups are on a limited import quota in Australia
And cut the “but this can pull 20,000 pounds up the Eisenhower Pass while actually making fuel instead of consuming it” crowd in 3-2-1.
Let’s be honest. If they import this truck I’ll talk about buying one on the internet.
I think it looks better than the GM twins though.
What can that do that a Sienna AWD can’t, besides offer more ground clearance?
Keep passengers completely separate from cargo?
Sometimes that’s good.
(I mean, some people also like pickups with open beds, but I’ve never owned one I didn’t immediately put a canopy and rack on.
Vans sure are useful things, though!)
@SCE to AUX – I had a Safari as a pickup alternative for 2 years. The van ends up smelling like your cargo. That is great if you make a few trips to the lumber yard but not so great if you make a few trips to the garbage dump. It is great if you enjoy the smell of swamp courtesy of 2 Labrador retrievers. Not so great if you happen to pack a few dirt bikes that dribble gasoline out of their carbs.
A van is good if your cargo is clean and contained.
You dirty rats had me all excited for about ten seconds.
@Drzhivago138,
They are a very nice vehicle on the road as well.
Many of our American friends attempt to look at the old US Rangers, Frontiers, Taco, Izuzu/GM triplets, etc.
They really need to go out and test drive the new Colorado to get a very rough idea on the refinement offered with these newer and smaller pickups.
I really like the US Colorado’s styling along with the new Ranger we will be getting.
Even on the highway my BT50 (Ranger) will sit on 160kph in cruise, up hill, through dale with the 3.2 diesel. Or, if you drive around at highway speeds you’ll return over 30mpg.
They aren’t as small as you would think, you still have to put some effort in parking them.
They are not that small.
I never said they were small, nor implied it. Sorry if I did inadvertently. To which comment did you mean to reply?
I’m sorry if you are offended by that comment.
It’s just already within this article there are some comments being made in relation to it’s size.
If you haven’t driven one or have seen one you will find they are on par with the Colorado or even the D40 or Taco.
I never doubted they were anything else. If this Ranger was being sold in the US and I was in the market for a smaller-than-fullsize pickup, it’d definitely be my first choice because I can be a shameless Ford fanboy sometimes.
I assume that’s 30mpg with *Imperial* gallons?
Remember that US gallons are smaller… that’d be 25mpg, US.
Which is still quite respectable, but not really any better than a gas Tacoma get, highway.
@Sigivald,
You assumed incorrectly, I was referring to US gallons.
It gets over 26mpg average, of course in US gallons.
And here I was thinking you had told us that the very maximum legal speed in Australia was 130 kph in Northern Territory on some roads. 160 kph on cruise, watching the scenery fly by. Hmmm.
Very thoughtful of you but quite possibly apocryphal if you intend to imply you do it on a regular basis. And if you don’t then why bring up a red herring?
Not long ago, the Northern Territory had no fixed speed limit on open highways. This was replaced by a 130 km/h limit, which has since been replaced by a trial that returned to having no limit on certain roads.
But there are no freeways there, so it ain’t exactly the autobahn. Driving much more than 130 km/h on two-lane roads without center dividers isn’t a particularly wise idea.
@Pch101,
So, what is the traffic on the roads?
You attempt to be clever yet you are so stupid.
The Outback has farms that are bigger than Switzerland, so what use is an Autobahn?
I can see now why you are a socialist. Not much sense if you want freeways in the Outback. I suppose the world needs people like you to make other feel good about themselves.
Also, the police only really patrol the settlements, etc. Not so much on the open highway.
At night you wouldn’t want to drive above 80kph, even with good driving lights and a bull bar.
Come to Australia one day and not pass judgment from what you read on Wikitravel.
I’m sure Pch101 meant that just because the sign says “130kph” does not mean it’s always safe to go that speed on a country two-lane road
http://images-2.drive.com.au/2013/05/08/4254477/130kmh_729-620×349.jpg
It would be suicidal to go that fast on this road
“I’m sure Pch101 meant that just because the sign says “130kph” does not mean it’s always safe to go that speed on a country two-lane road”
Anyone who can’t understand something that basic about traffic safety does not deserve to have a drivers license.
“I’m sure Pch101 meant that just because the sign says “130kph” does not mean it’s always safe to go that speed on a country two-lane road
http://images-2.drive.com.au/2013/05/08/4254477/130kmh_729-620×349.jpg
It would be suicidal to go that fast on this road”
Nah. Not suicidal. Just uncomfortable.
@wmba,
You comment is akin of me passing a comment of driving in Qubecistanian roads.
I have yet to drive in BC, Alberta or as far away as Newfoundland.
There is in fact unrestricted speed limits under trial in the NT (where I used to live).
But, the Outback is 3/4 the size of continental US with less than 250 000 people.
My sister was shopping for an Escape a few months back. I mentioned I wanted a new Ranger, and the salesman replied with “Ford’s coming out with a new ranger in next year or two.”
I didn’t believe him, but that gullible twinge kind of wanted wanted to, despite knowing better. I justified it as being the international Ranger. I was right, but I don’t feel good about it.
Out of the last three Ford salesmen I’ve spoken to, one insisted that the (then-new) 2010 Fusion is the best-selling car in North America, out-selling the Camry and Accord (Advantage Ford, Calgary).
Another told me that the 2013 Focus was significantly updated from the 2012, with all-new sheet metal and underpinnings (Maclin Ford, Calgary).
One told me that the 2004 Ford Freestar was a completely new design, sharing almost nothing with the Windstar (Magnuson Ford, Abbotsford).
It would be nice if Ford salesmen knew what they were talking about. In my experience, they don’t.
@geo – that is typical of almost ALL salesmen regardless of brand.
Go to a Chrysler dealer and ask any of them what the cargo ratings are for an Ecodiesel Laramie Longhorn 4×4.
I know in some years the Fusion was the best selling mid size car in Canada. Not sure where it sits so far this year. Of course compacts are the best selling car segment in Canada so they are far from the best selling “car” in Canada.
@Scoutdude,
The range of payloads is much higher than you would get many U.S. 1/2 tons. The trade off is you get considerable Off Road and Fuel Economy as against a U.S. 1/2 ton. What the “Gorilla in the Room” and not part of the U.S. scene, is the Euro Van derived Pickups, from 2,500lb for VW Commercials to 10,800lb for the IVECO 70c . These do have some fairly large Crewcabs
After that we go to “Trucks” starting with Japanese light to very HD European/ Japanese and US derived stuff
Even if Ford did decide to sell this here, it would still be a better move than the disgusting, atrocious Cadillac ATS and CTS, while the awkwardly-named, awkwardly-styled CT6 looks like another misstep. Cadillac has simply lost the plot. They’ve lost it so badly, they might need a park ranger to help them find it!
DW, one account is quite enough.
The Counselor was such a train wreck of a movie – and I was so prepared for it to be good! A bunch of good actors (plus Penelope Cruz – eh mediocre), given a poor script and unbelievable characters and scenes to play out. (One notable one, a secretive drug dealer having a big loud party at his place, with corny armed 1980s muscle men at the gates.)
Everybody in the movie makes random speeches about greed and whatnot, little of which makes sense or has any relevance to the plot happening.
The trailer made it look very stylish and seductive – the only parts of the movie with either of those elements were shown in said trailer.
I second this review. Left us scratching our heads. Now the windshield scene was at least worth the Redbox fee.
“It was like the fish they use to clean fishtanks!” :D
LOL that line was hilarious, how put off he was by the whole event.
But I think back – where did that scene take place? In the random middle-of-nowhere swanky bar he was buying, which had nothing to do with anything.
x.x
Yes high-end Tex-Mex rave country western bar. WTF
They should have done the reveal in the better looking wild track package.
In real life the Wildtrak doesn’t look as good, it’s gawdy. People who buy them wouldn’t take them off road. They are a pose vehicle, like many who buy Raptors and PowerWagons.
The Wildtrak accesories actually removes much of the utility of the bed.
I do think customising the vehicle to suit your requirement is the best. Why would you buy a Wildtrak that will do the same as an XL off road.
It seems our “off the shelf” standard 4x4s are better equipped overall.
Here in Australia our base models get all of the traction, locking diffs, trailer sway and all the suite of acronyms that the high end models get. Even Derek mentioned this in the article.
I noticed in the US you have to buy these capabilities one top of buying the 4×4. In other words many base model pickups are barren of these 21st Century features.
Also, an off the shelf vehicle in the US along the lines of say a TRD is best done using aftermarket gear. You get a far better result for a lot less money.
Sort of like many who buy Raptors and only drive them to the mall. A waste of a good vehicle.
if you want a ranger, buy the tens of thousands of used examples on sale today.
@johnhowington,
These are a completely different vehicle. These can carry almost what a light HD can and tow around 7 800lbs.
The are much more refined, equivalent to a full size 1/2 in that respect.
[citation needed]
@Drzhivago138,
Use Google.
“if you want a ranger, buy the tens of thousands of used examples on sale today.” — except that they’re either rolling wrecks or grossly overpriced for the need.
And they have old, inefficient engines & don’t meet modern safety standards.
@Derek,
Your comment as I have highlighted below in the cut and paste is slightly misleading;
“it gets a new suite of active safety features (active cruise control, park assist), as well as trailer sway control, hill descent control and things that our government considers mandatory”.
The Ranger (and BT50) have had these features since they were first sold in 2011. Even the base models have these features, along with another great feature you missed, an E locker rear end.
Also, the cost of the Ranger would be cheaper if they came out of Thailand or South Africa. The pricing you gave is inflated due to the chicken tax forcing the manufacture of the Ranger in the US.
I’d also suspect that the aluminium F-150 would cost a significant amount more than the Ranger even if it was built in a NAFTA country.
A base model Ranger here with the 2.5 gasoline engine can be had for $18 000USD, before any wheeling and dealing. I’d suspect you can get into one for less than $17 000USD.
In Chile they sell the F150, Raptor and Ranger along side each other here are the prices for 2014 in Chilean dollars
F150 Platinum 3.5l crew cab 4×4 $29.990.000 $47,984 USD
Lariat Crew Caw 4×4 5.0l $27.190.000 or $43,504 USD
xlt crew 4×4 5.0 $25.190.000 or $40,304 USD
Raptor $36.990.000 or $59,184 USD
Ranger Xlt TDi 4×4 crew $22.990.000 or $36,784 USD
Considering that the 2014 F150 Platinum 4×4 3.5L starts at $50,000 I’m wondering if the prices are set at the beginning of each model year so exchange rates don’t alter the price significantly. but regardless it appears that the Ranger is priced in line with the colorado and canyon. But when the colorado sells 6500 trucks in February and the Canyon sells 2500 totaling 8000 sales yet the F series sells 55,000 Trucks during the same time leads me to believe that Ford doesn’t want to split those sales with GM since between getting the engines EPA certified and the NA crash test and getting around the chicken tax all for owners to decide that the extra $40 a month when financed for 72 months to get the f150 with a v8. ( I got my Raptor for only a few grand more than the TRD Tacoma TX Pro Baja (TRD Pro predecessor) and it came with nicer interior 10 way heated leather seats premium sound sun roof etc.) Yes enthusiast will bemoan the lack of choices but people need to buy a vehicle new for them to stay in production. You and I have both seen some posters on another web site say they cannot wait to buy a used compact truck, news flash if you aren’t willing to buy new then there aren’t going to be any used ones.
@Carilloskis,
In USD we are now getting many vehicles cheaper than you guys in the US, including pickups.
You can buy a diesel 4×4 midspec dual cab Mitsubishi Triton for $29 990 driveaway or $28k normally. Or in USD it is around $22k.
$22 000USD for a 4×4 midspec dual cab. That’s good value.
I do think will be forced into releasing this in the US market over the next couple of years or so.
This is because the new F-150 will not produce the sales Ford will be expecting and the success of the Colorado will force Ford’s hand.
I suppose it is better late than never.
They are a very capable vehicle and as a standard 4×4 vehicle be competitive with a TRD Taco off road, especially a diesel version.
Why would the Colorado force Ford’s hand when the Tacoma hasn’t?
(Seriously, I don’t know why that’s different.)
If you really have only one serious player in the market sector it is not going to grow it. We call the ” 1 Tonne Utes” as a DualCab should have min 2,200lb payload. The Ranger has 2,500lb
@RobertRyan,
I hate to disappoint you, but a 2WD Ranger has a load capacity of around 1 300kg or 2 860lbs, or a little less than this;
F-350 SRW 4×4, with a 172.4″ WB @ 2950lbs.
F-250 SRW 4×4, with a 172.4″ WB @ 2880lbs.
Now, I do realise some F-250s/350s do have higher payloads.
But it illustrates how useful these can be with a 6’4″ x 8′ tray/flatbed can be.
@RobertRyan,
I just had a look at a 2WD Ranger on one of our Ford website and it stated is carries 1306kg. I was incorrect.
I used a converter on the web and came up with this result!
2879.2371441361lbs.
Here is the F-250 I saw on the US Frod website;
F-250 SRW 4×4, with a 172.4″ WB @ 2880lbs.
Not much in it!
Check the right boxes on the order sheet and the F150 has a payload of 3300lbs. It is all about how you order it in the US we don’t have one size fits all pickups there are dozens of choices to tailor it to your exact needs. So yeah if you want a truck to tow your huge trailer with the bumper hitch then you might want a lower GVW higher GCWR version of the F250 for a better ride but still able to tow your trailer. On the other hand you may use it to haul materials for work and have no need to tow so you want a high GVW F150 to do the job with the lowest overall cost of operation.
“… in the US we don’t have one size fits all pickups there are dozens of choices to tailor it to your exact needs.”
Oh, how I wish that were true. Here’s what I want:
Length: 15 feet
Width: 66″ (plus mirrors)
Height: 60″
Bed: 5 feet
Tailgate Opening: 54″
Load: 800# plus two passengers (est. 1300# total)
Engine: 2.4L I-4, 180 hp
Transmission: 6sp manual or 6+ speed automatic
Drivetrain: AWD with low range and locking rear differential
Cab type: Extended with half-door access re 2009 Ranger and others (NOT mock-4-door configuration re Ram and full-size GM)
Do I need 3-across seating front or rear? No. Do I want it? No. Do I even need a seat in the extension? No, though a flat bench would not be refused.
Now, show me where I can order one for use here in the US.
Vulpine, I don’t think there has ever been a truck that fits your description. And I have owned a number of trucks, both new and used, over the past five decades.
1983 Mitsubishi Sport, extended-cab/short-bed and just about all the similar models, though I’ll grant they didn’t have the ‘suicide door’ access behind the front seat. Still doesn’t mean the type is impossible. The Hyundai Santa Cruz appears to fall almost right into those specs.
By the way, ScoutDude was the one that said you could order exactly what you needed (or wanted). I just demonstrated that you can’t. As I’ve said in more than one place, “One size does NOT fit all!”
Mitsu isn’t big in my area. In fact I don’t know if there even is a dealer within reasonable distance.
But more importantly, are those 1983 models still available in your area? Sometimes if you Google “xxx for sale” all sorts of possibilities pop up.
I only owned a used Galant, which my oldest son used all through High School and College and then took with him when he joined the Marines after he left home. He kept it for a number of years after that and only dumped it when it broke down and he thought it too old to put money into it.
@Scoutdude,
The Ford F-150 HD has a max Payload of 3,300lb from memory used to 3000lbs but it does not have the ability to go Off Road like The Ranger or the Fuel Economy
Few people have the HD option in the US, they tend to go for the base F250 instead
@HDC: “Mitsu isn’t big in my area. In fact I don’t know if there even is a dealer within reasonable distance.” — Understood. The Mitsubishi dealerships have thinned out significantly over the last 10 years or so. But even so, they no longer offer a pickup truck and the last one they did was still bigger than I prefer, though not so obscenely large as today’s full-sized trucks and new-generation mid-sized trucks.
“But more importantly, are those 1983 models still available in your area?” — Does it matter? I don’t want to buy a worn out old piece of junk which is what most 30-year-old compact trucks are today. I personally know somebody with an ’85 Hardbody Nissan that looks great–until you lift the bed liner out. It’s not like I could just drop in a new bed, either. I’d have to cut most of the rusted metal and try to build an all new bed floor for the thing and who knows how much else. I’d spend as much as I would for a new Hyundai without having any of the modern technologies that Hyundai would carry.
Oh, and Fiat, Chevy and GMC already have something that size available–just not in the US.
Vulpine,as soon as you figure out how to break the laws of physics you’ll be rich enough to afford to have exactly the truck you want custom built for you. By the time you take the 5′ bed they bumpers the thickness of the tail gate, front bed wall, cab/bed gap, your extra cab that has any sort of room behind the seat then you’ll be stuck choosing between room for the front seat passengers or the engine.
Plus you are trying to put words in my mouth. I was just pointing out to Big Al that in the US you have the choice of a wide range of payloads in trucks, at least from GM and Ford and that his cherry picking of the lowest capacity F250 doesn’t make his point very well.
Vulpine, I understand your predicament. In my area where there is little to no rust, it is not unusual to see antique pickup trucks still routinely on the road.
Most of them are “project” trucks where the owners painstakingly rebuild them, upgrade them, repaint them and then use them as daily drivers, or if they are especially nice, as Sunday drivers.
I checked around my area to see if anyone knew of a 1983 Mitsu Sport, but no one did.
Federico, my American-born Mexican foreman said there may be some in Mexico but if there are, they can no longer be brought back to the US once they were brought from the US to Mexico.
Oh, and one more thing. I ran a nationwide search for a “1983 Mitsubishi Sport, extended-cab/short-bed pickup truck for sale” and found zero. Lots of other 1983 compact trucks from Toyota, Nissan, et al, but no Mitsu.
Then that’s what you should have said, Scoutdude, instead of implying the F-150 was a ‘one size fits all’ truck.
And you might want to take a look at the Hyundai Santa Cruz yourself. Nearly every dimension is close to where I want it and it IS significantly smaller than any existing “mid-sized truck” on today’s market. Yes, I know it’s not out yet, but for some reason Hyundai is sounding a lot more positive about this than Jeep is about their possible Jeep-branded truck.
@HDC: The Mitsi Sport was a good little truck. With the larger of the two engines and a 5-speed stick, it could outrun the little French turbo-boosted sporter of the day; the Renault Fuego. It’s Americanized cousin was the Dodge D-50 with sport trim, but the Dodge had a different grill and headlights to set it off from the Mitsi. I stuck a set of cheap air horns under the hood because people tended to not see me as they were merging onto Denver’s freeways. They MOVED when those bugles sounded off.
I remember the D-50. A friend of mine had a Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth dealership during the eighties in the town where I now live and he pumped out a few to happy campers. But none of those are still around in town.
That segment is such a tough arena to compete in that I am not surprised at Jeep and Hyundai’s reluctance to dive in.
I do agree that Hyundai needs to bring a compact truck (not a midsize truck) to market.
As it stands now, the Tacoma has the sales crown in that segment, GM is trying to get it with their new midsize trucks, Ford has no entry and is marketing the F150 as a one-size-fits-all pickup truck, The Honda Ridgeline is an outlier for the ladies-truck-niche, and the Frontier appeals to a fan-base all their own.
I’m all for “the more, the merrier” but this segment is a hard financial nut to crack for the OEMs unless they are already entrenched, like Tacoma.
And Toyota never updates anything unless their sales are threatened, like now with the GM offerings.
I was surprised that GM re-entered the fray but that was probably driven by the fact that Tacoma had no competition to speak of.
I’ve always been a fullsize halfton pickup kinda guy with plenty of room to park more than one truck. In Jan 2011 I had three pickup trucks after I bought my 2011 Tundra. That was insane!
But I do agree, there needs to be more choice in smaller pickup trucks so that people like you can buy exactly what you want and need.
@Vulpine,
This might suit you.
We still have the D22 Navara (Nissan Hardbody) in Australia. They come with a 2.5 turbo CRD, midspec, 4×4 for $20 000USD driveaway, (rego, insurance, delivery/dealer costs).
They are around 17′ long, if I remember correctly they are designed to fit into the Japanese vehicle classification of 1.7m or 5’6″ in width.
http://www.nissan.com.au/Cars-Vehicles/Navara-D22/Offers
http://www.nissan.com.au/Cars-Vehicles/Navara-D22/Offers
Good commentary, HDC. I’m glad to see you actually remember them. I think the Mitsubishi-based compacts are probably the rarest of the rare as I still occasionally see the Hardbody Datsuns (as compared to Nissan), and when I’m down South I’ll even see a P’up or Courier in my old home town. But where I live now, if it’s more than 20 years old and still in decent shape (limited rust) I’m surprised.
That said, I would suggest that the Ridgeline is more popular with guys rather than gals where I live; they love the fact that there is so much protected storage in the Honda both in the cab and in the bed. On the other hand, the Nissan Frontier seems more popular with the women; something about not being too big and easy to drive. The Frontier’s lazier engine appears to be its advantage to them.
Meanwhile, where I bank and even some places I shop I keep hearing, “I wish we had new, small trucks like we used to have. They’re easier to load and unload than these minivans/crossovers we’re using now.”
Oh, and speaking of minivans. A brand new Jeep dealer near me has a 2013 Caravan on the lot–with only 100 miles on the odometer. Never sold and moderately well equipped. Window sticker asking for $22K. Any takers? (I don’t want it.)
Hey, Big Al! Any chance I could wrangle one of those for US spec? The width falls within my requirements. Then again, I want a cab-and-a-half, not a dual cab.
Ah well. I’ll keep waitin’ and watchin’.
Vulpine, on the Ridgeline: in my area the Ridge (RTL) is all the rave with the ladies. And many haul bales of hay in the bed, and a one-horse trailer in tow behind them.
Men are more inclined to buy an F150 in my part of the Great Southwest, and Silverado comes in at a close second place.
Mine is a predominantly Mexican-American region, as is West Texas and Southern Arizona where they love their Chebbies!
SUV-wise the Suburban and Yukon XL are commonly known as the Texas Cadillac and are too numerous here to count.
Most model years are still on the road here because the owners just keep fixing them to keep them running and parts of all kinds are plentiful, here and just across the border in Old Mexico.
The 5.7-liter RAM 1500 (in any trim) is the most popular and sought-after Fiatsler truck because of its ideal power-to-weight ratio. Bigger than GM’s 5.3 and also cylinder-management capable.
But, as is your predicament, there aren’t enough compact or midsized pickup trucks.
And while the Toyota dealer is also the GM dealer in the town where I live now, they can’t lose since that the new GM midsizers have come on the market.
Vulpine as usual you try to put words in my mouth, my point was unlike the Ranger that Big Al gets down under the Ford and GM trucks are available with numerous payloads. So his argument that the Global Ranger’s payload is so close to the lowest of the F250’s payload is disingenuous. The F150 and GM twins have higher available payloads in their “1/2 ton” than the lowest payloads in their “3/4 ton”.
You should take a closer look at the Hyundai it does not have the 5′ bed you want, it is in the neighborhood of a 4′ bed. The Hyundai Santa Fe that it is based on is about 16′ in length. So get it down to your 15′ length and you are left with a 3′ bed, or you have to cut out the extended cab, room for an actual adult in the front seat area, the engine, or make it a cab over design which will be real fun for them to engineer a version of which meets crash test standards.
That 1983 Mitsu truck was just over 15′ but did not come in an extended cab version in the US. The later version did and with its 5.5′ bed it was over 16′.
@Scoutdude: I was not putting words in your mouth, you said what you said, even if your meaning was different. But that’s beside the point.
“You should take a closer look at the Hyundai it does not have the 5′ bed you want, it is in the neighborhood of a 4′ bed.” — Maybe you should look again, as with the tailgate down, the floor of the bed extends to make it closer to five feet long; reportedly an actual sliding bed and not just using the tailgate itself as an extension. The Santa Cruz is also not based on the Santa Fe, but rather the Tucson, which is a slightly larger model. Even so, it is significantly and very visibly smaller in height and length from the Colorado–scaling photos make it anywhere from 24″-36″ shorter by estimates, though actual measurements will probably bring it down about 30″ shorter than the extended cab Colorado.
Mitsi did offer an extended cab version of the old Mighty Max and Sport–but I believe only for a couple years before they were effectively driven out of the market. I know this because I made the mistake of buying my Sport one year too soon, in ’83. I don’t believe the D-50 ever received the extended cab version.
@Sigivald,
Because the Colorado isn’t like a Taco, it is more like a full size in refinement.
The Taco is almost a tractor along with the D40 Frontier.
Some of you US guys have to realise these new midsizers are not the same as your old midsizers. They are chalk and cheese.
So, do you compare a Sonata to a 3 Series BMW. The difference is almost that great.
@Big Al – Colorado sales have not hurt anyone’s pickup sales. Tacoma sales are up and so are sales of all the full sized 1/2 tons. Even Chevy is selling way more trucks.
I suspect that the same buyers flocking to bigger CUV’s or SUV’s are also lining up for the Colorado/Canyon pair. There are also those that want to upgrade from their tired old Rangers. Colorado’s, S10’s etc. that are “buy America” types.
I have yet to see a reason why Ford should bother entering the market. You keep saying the aluminum F150 is a sales disaster BUT my local dealer has a few 1014’s left and I’m seeing 2015 trucks all over the place.
@Lou_BC,
I have yet to state that the new aluminium F-150 sales would be disaster. I have stated they will not sell in the numbers of the old steel F-150.
Are Ram sales a disaster? Yet they sell less than the F-150 (together).
Yes, the Colorado has already taken sales away from other pickups. The market is in an upswing at the moment. So how many Colorado’s were sold in lieu of another pickup brand?
Also, the Ranger will be introduced to compete against the Colorado. Ford has a midsizer that can also take sales from other brands.
As for the Taco. “Why should the Colorado take sales away from the Taco?” I do suspect it has taken some sales already.
Just because numbers increase across the board (F-150 being the exception) is not an indication that the Colorado hasn’t taken sales away. They must be coming from somewhere.
The Colorado didn’t just magically create a new market segment.
Despite the bogus math Ford cites — a vehicle that is 90 percent as long, 90 percent as wide, and 90 percent as tall as a full size truck is 73 percent its size if you actually do the math — I was ready to replace my Ranger with an F150 until i heard the news of the impending Colorado/Canyon twins. I finally had a chance to sit in a Canyon today. I will not be buying one. It is not perceptibly larger inside than the Ranger. Seat is too narrow, the bolstering is nonexistent, and there is very little thigh support. For smaller guys with shorter legs I’m sure it will be fine, but I’d be cramped. Too bad.
Still, I wish folks (including blog editors) would quit regurgitating Ford talking points about the relative sizes of midsize and fullsize pickups, because what they’re saying just ain’t so.
Better to say roughly the size of a late 90’s to early 00’s a Full size 1/2 ton, but narrower
While it may be 73% of the larger truck’s volume, the perception is still that it’s 90% of its SIZE. Taking that into consideration then, a true compact truck should not be more than 80% the SIZE of a full-sized truck to occupy 50% of the volume. 51.2% to be exact.
But to be honest, I’d prefer a compact to be no more than 75% the SIZE of a full sized truck with roughly 42% of the overall volume. That would average about three feet shorter, eight inches narrower and roughly twelve inches lower than a current full-sized truck. If we assumed a five-foot bed length, we should still see a four-point-five-foot width between the sidewalls and a fifteen- to eighteen-inch depth giving 28 cubic feet of in-bed capacity not counting wheel wells with an unlimited height capacity. It’s all _I_ need.
@Vulpine
Had a few opportunities to check the actual sizes over the years. They are a slightly larger Ute here,but a base RAM, appeared smaller maybe perception
The Dodge Dakota was the first of the true mid-sized pickup trucks, visibly larger than the compact trucks at the time and larger even than the first Ranger and S-10/S-15 from Ford and GM. The two domestic brands grew to match with their second generation while most of the imports disappeared. Even so, the Toyota and Nissan remained slightly smaller pretty much up to about ’01-’03 or so. Then those two grew to the domestic brands’ size while all three domestics grew just a little bit more–but still notably smaller than today’s Colorado. I could live with a pre-’04 Ranger/S-10, etc, but they’re not what I want. I’m still waiting for my step-father to let go of his ’94 Ranger with stick, but I’ll also note that specific one would be a Denver Mike favorite–a “stripper”. Will meet my needs, but not necessarily my wants. With only 30K original miles on it, I’ll bet I could get some decent cash out of it.Oh, and it’s been kept in a garage out of the weather for the last 15 years when he isn’t using it.
The Ranger never grew significantly. When the rounded body style came out it grew a couple of inches in width. Later the regular cab grew 3″ in length while the extended cab stayed the same.
I’m guessing you’re not an engineer. When a midsize truck’s physical dimensions–including curb weight–are 75 percent of a fullsizer, perceptions are sort of irrelevant. Reality has a slightly more rational basis for determining size than perception.
@Rocketrodeo: The current Colorado’s weight is NOT “75 percent of a fullsizer”, it comes in much closer to 90 percent of the weight of the equivalent full-sized Silverado. In this case we cannot include the current aluminum-bodied Ford F-150 in the argument because it is not “equivalent” in construction materials. With the full-sized Chevy Silverado coming in at roughly 5700# and the Colorado coming in at roughly 5200# the differential comes in at 91.2% of the weight of full-sized despite being 25% smaller by volume.
I might note that Chevy doesn’t seem to want to advertise the curb weights of their trucks for a more accurate figure.
Brochure curb weight for a double cab Colorado with the 6′ bed is 4,450. There certainly aren’t 750 pounds of order sheet options. The corresponding extra cab Silverado is 5,325.
Correct figures are about 10 seconds of googling away so I don’t understand why you continue to invent your own. It must be a small truck thing.
That’s still nearly 85%, NOT 75%, so it still invalidates your argument. And yes, depending on model you could easily see up to 400# or more of options. I DID specify “equivalent”, meaning same option set across both vehicles. I’ll give you that you at least kept the same body style (extended cab, by whatever name), but what about their associated option packages?
And I did Google for the curb weight of the trucks. That’s why I said Chevy did not want to post those weights. My old F-150, by comparison, had 4200# marked on the door sticker with standard cab/long (8′) bed. So yet again you demonstrate that the Colorado is not “mid-sized” but rather old-school full sized in both overall dimensions and weight.
Except width. Try sitting three across comfortably in a Colorado.
The loaded Colorados in GM’s press fleet weighed in within spitting distance of that. C&D: 4,536lb. MT: 4,511.
There aren’t a lot of options on the build sheet that weigh anything, or even that don’t weigh anything. Side steps and a bedliner are about it. No tow package, no sunroof, no payload package, no skidplates, they don’t even offer an LT tire option.
“Try sitting three across comfortably in a Colorado.”
With a bench seat, I’m sure you could. But since I don’t need to, why should I bother? How many more times must I say, “I don’t need full size”, not even legacy full-sized.
My comment on width was not necessarily one regarding your needs, or any person’s needs, but the fact that you called the Colorado legacy full-size in overall dimensions. Height, yes. Length, yes. Wheelbase, pretty much. Width? 74.3≠ 79.
“… but the fact that you called the Colorado legacy full-size in overall dimensions. Height, yes. Length, yes. Wheelbase, pretty much. Width? 74.3≠ 79.”
Is that including or not including side mirrors? I will acknowledge that there may be a 5″ difference in width old to new, but that 5 inches isn’t really all that significant for seating three across on a bench. Now if you were trying four across…
The thing is, I would be quite happy if that 74.3″ was 64.3″, as long as height and length were proportionately shorter. The Colorado simply does not qualify as “Mid-Sized” in my eyes and in the eyes of people who actually want something significantly smaller.
The 74.3 is width not including mirrors of the Colorado. 79 was the width of the 1990 F-150 less mirrors. (A modern F-150 is 1″ wider).
FWIW, I see nothing wrong with someone wanting a smaller truck that’s easier to park and drive. My CUV is not quite 72″ outside and I feel that’s the perfect width for me (being able to reach across and open the passenger door with minimal effort). I also like being in a wide vehicle with enough room both laterally and horizontally for 3 large adults (which I’m not).
“If you live in the NAFTA zone (excluding Mexico, of course), your best bet at seeing a global Ford Ranger is in the movie The Counselor.”
And yet, I’ve seen two in the last couple of months in central Texas, the last with a corporate logo for a company I’d never heard of.
Those I saw in Cambodia were nice trucks, and would have been a great rival to the new Colorado, and more compelling to than the current aging Tacoma.
You really want a Ranger? A guy down the street wanted an Ecosport. His cousin drove a new Mexican-plated Ecosport up here from Mexico. It seems to me the cousin left but the car didn’t. Got a cousin in Mexico who’s willing to title it to himself but park it at your house? :-)
I saw this Ranger (in orange/yellowish) a couple weeks outside the Ford plant on Plymouth in Livonia. Here’s why I believe it will be available in the USA. It was LEFT HAND DRIVE!!
LHD is available as well as RHD. I think it would be there for testing in the US of some new system ,that will be on the new 2015/2016 Model